Each house may not only punish, but, with the concurrence
of two thirds, it may expel a member. This regulation
is adopted by the constitution of Pennsylvania: "but,"
it is added, "not a second time for the same cause." The
reason for the addition evidently is--that the member,
who has offended, cannot be an object of a second expulsion,
unless, since the offence given and punished by the
first expulsion, he has been either reelected by his former
constituents, or elected by others. In both cases, his election
is a proof, that, in the opinion of his constituents, he
either has not offended at all, or has been already sufficiently
punished for his offence. The language of each
opinion is, that he ought not to be expelled again: and the
language of the constituents is a law to the house.

. . . . .

The constitution of the United States directs, that each
house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and, from
time to time, publish them, except such parts as may require
secrecy: it directs further, that the yeas and nays of
the members of either house, on any question, shall, at the
desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the
journal. The constitution of Pennsylvania goes still further
upon these points: it directs, that the journals shall be published
weekly; that the yeas and nays shall be entered on
them, at the desire of any two members; and that the
doors of each house, and of committees of the whole, shall
be open, unless when the business shall be such as ought
to be kept secret.

That the conduct and proceedings of representatives
should be as open as possible to the inspection of those
whom they represent, seems to be, in republican government,
a maxim, of whose truth or importance the smallest
doubt cannot be entertained. That, by a necessary consequence,
every measure, which will facilitate or secure this
open communication of the exercise of delegated power,
should be adopted and patronised by the constitution and
laws of every free state, seems to be another maxim, which
is the unavoidable result of the former. For these reasons,
I feel myself necessarily and unavoidably led to consider
the additional regulations made, upon this subject, by the
constitution of Pennsylvania, as improvements upon those
made by the constitution of the United States. The regulation--that
the doors of each house, and of committees of
the whole, shall be open--I view as an improvement highly
beneficial both in its nature and in its consequence--both
to the representatives and to their constituents. "In the
house of commons," says Sir William Blackstone, "the conduct
of every member is subject to the future censure of
his constituents, and therefore should be openly submitted
to their inspection." But I forbear to enter more largely
into this interesting topick.